That's not how I understood his words, like at all. He means that monetisation should be considered as part of the creative process.
Many indie devs could've been sitting on gold mines, but that those rewards (which could've lead to the creation/evolution of more games) weren't reaped because they didn't consider it. Now of course some of those devs wouldn't care about that at all, but I bet there's also some whose jaws would've dropped if they were told how much they could've made.
> ...monetisation should be considered as part of the creative process
That mindset is the antithesis of open source.
And believe it or not, not every game dev is into it to make money. There was some classic interaction between Nimblebit and Zynga back when where Zynga offered to buy Nimblebit, who politely turned down the offer. It could have made a huge amount of money for the founders, but they preferred making their money by creating great games.
Aren't 99% of successful indie games closed source?
> And believe it or not, not every game dev is into it to make money
Oh absolutely, did you not read my comment?:
> Now of course some of those devs wouldn't care about that at all
My point is x% don't care about the money and just want to make great games. Cool! I'm all for it. But y% probably would care about the money if they knew how much they could've gotten had they considered monetisation as part (keyword being part) of the creative process.
That's not how I understood his words, like at all. He means that monetisation should be considered as part of the creative process.
Many indie devs could've been sitting on gold mines, but that those rewards (which could've lead to the creation/evolution of more games) weren't reaped because they didn't consider it. Now of course some of those devs wouldn't care about that at all, but I bet there's also some whose jaws would've dropped if they were told how much they could've made.
> ...monetisation should be considered as part of the creative process
That mindset is the antithesis of open source.
And believe it or not, not every game dev is into it to make money. There was some classic interaction between Nimblebit and Zynga back when where Zynga offered to buy Nimblebit, who politely turned down the offer. It could have made a huge amount of money for the founders, but they preferred making their money by creating great games.
> That mindset is the antithesis of open source.
Aren't 99% of successful indie games closed source?
> And believe it or not, not every game dev is into it to make money
Oh absolutely, did you not read my comment?:
> Now of course some of those devs wouldn't care about that at all
My point is x% don't care about the money and just want to make great games. Cool! I'm all for it. But y% probably would care about the money if they knew how much they could've gotten had they considered monetisation as part (keyword being part) of the creative process.